The people spoke

The people spoke

There are 25 comments on the TwinCities.com story from May 5, 2011, titled The people spoke. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The editorial "Learning from the Legacy Amendment" did not show an understanding of why a solid majority of Minnesotans voted for the Legacy Amendment.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

TNR

Since: Apr 08

Minneapolis, MN

#1 May 6, 2011
Charlotte,

A large minority of the people who voted for the Legacy Amendment did not know there was a tax component to it. And the amendment was stupid because it absolved the government from having to solve the problem

Gary,

I don't even know where to start with you other than to say when you see the boogey man does he look like Tim Pawlenty? Again everything is Pawlenty's fault. Also, I hate to break it to you but I'm an abortion supporting, gay marriage supporting, voter ID supporting MN. My politics are just left of center so it appears to me that the only people who do not support Voter ID is the extreme left!

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#2 May 6, 2011
"a solid majority of Minnesotans voted for the Legacy Amendment. " Technically, the majority of Minnesotans either voted No or didn't vote.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#3 May 6, 2011
We're starting to sound like California here. Pretty soon we'll have three amendments and six propositions on each ballot. Rule by popular hasn't worked well for them, I doubt it will for us.
Gndydncr

Rochester, MN

#4 May 6, 2011
Are there any other amendments that specify the appropriation of funds? Isn't the appropriation of funds a duty of the legislature that is allowed to shift with the needs of the people? Has anyone challenged the legacy amendment on those ground
Rolf Westgard

Saint Paul, MN

#5 May 6, 2011
Right on, Gary. Voter ID reminds me of the schemes that prevailed in the South for decades which blocked black people at the polls.
Unfortunately, the "extreme conservative" wing is now dominating the GOP.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 May 6, 2011
Rolf Westgard wrote:
Right on, Gary. Voter ID reminds me of the schemes that prevailed in the South for decades which blocked black people at the polls.
Unfortunately, the "extreme conservative" wing is now dominating the GOP.
so now showing an ID is an "extreme conservative" position?

Holy Hyperbole, Batman!

TNR

Since: Apr 08

Minneapolis, MN

#7 May 6, 2011
Rolf Westgard wrote:
Right on, Gary. Voter ID reminds me of the schemes that prevailed in the South for decades which blocked black people at the polls.
Unfortunately, the "extreme conservative" wing is now dominating the GOP.
Really Rolf,

That whole drivers license thing must really yank your cord. It's preventing all those 9 year olds from driving and the hassle of having to show the police when you get pulled over is uncalled for.

For Pete sake, how is having a voter ID any different from having a drivers license?
Gndydncr

Rochester, MN

#8 May 6, 2011
Rolf Westgard wrote:
Right on, Gary. Voter ID reminds me of the schemes that prevailed in the South for decades which blocked black people at the polls.
Unfortunately, the "extreme conservative" wing is now dominating the GOP.
I suspect, Rolf, that the real reason you're against voter id is very simple.

It's because the conservatives are for it.

And since there is no reasonable reason to be against it, your DFL spinmeister, whomever he or she might be, has given you this list of fake reasons to be against it.
It will discourage the young from voting.
It will discourage the old from voting.
It will discourage the poor from voting.
It will discourage the rich from voting.
It will discourage the homeless from voting.
It will discoarage the people of color from voting.
It will discourage the handicapped from voting.
It will discourage the felons from voting.

Did I miss any?
Margin of Error

Minneapolis, MN

#9 May 6, 2011
Rolf Westgard wrote:
Right on, Gary. Voter ID reminds me of the schemes that prevailed in the South for decades which blocked black people at the polls.
Unfortunately, the "extreme conservative" wing is now dominating the GOP.
Whitey Please.
felons for franken

United States

#10 May 6, 2011
anyone named Rolf probably has issues any way.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#12 May 6, 2011
None of you folks mind the $20 million price tag? that;s for the basic floor model. If we want the one that actually has a slim chance at stopping the very few cases of voter fraud it will most likely be exponentially larger.

I'd rather have the money in our coffers and let the 32 felons slips through on their votes.
Democrats rock

Elk River, MN

#13 May 6, 2011
woodtick57 wrote:
None of you folks mind the $20 million price tag? that;s for the basic floor model. If we want the one that actually has a slim chance at stopping the very few cases of voter fraud it will most likely be exponentially larger.
I'd rather have the money in our coffers and let the 32 felons slips through on their votes.
The only way it will come close to costing 20 million is if the government charges 20 million to issue under 1000 ID's. Few cases of voter fraud? 20,000 more votes than voters in 2008 is major voter fraud. Voter fraud gave us Franken and Dayton.
wjh

Saint Paul, MN

#14 May 6, 2011
woodtick57 wrote:
None of you folks mind the $20 million price tag? that;s for the basic floor model. If we want the one that actually has a slim chance at stopping the very few cases of voter fraud it will most likely be exponentially larger.
I'd rather have the money in our coffers and let the 32 felons slips through on their votes.
Really, so your ok with 32 legal voters getting disenfranchised? And what is your plan to protect legal voters?

I doubt it would cost 20 million and even if it did, lets take it from Planned Parent Hood or NPR. They don't need it.
here we go

Saint Paul, MN

#15 May 6, 2011
Really Charlotte? You really want to go there? The majority of the people who voted for this had no clue what they were voting for. The rest of who voted against it, did...
wjh

Saint Paul, MN

#16 May 6, 2011
Rolf Westgard wrote:
Right on, Gary. Voter ID reminds me of the schemes that prevailed in the South for decades which blocked black people at the polls.
Unfortunately, the "extreme conservative" wing is now dominating the GOP.
OH PLEASE! this is such a lame argument unless you really think black people don't have photo ID's or engage in any kind of commerce that requires one.

Talk about extreme opinions.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#17 May 6, 2011
wjh wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, so your ok with 32 legal voters getting disenfranchised? And what is your plan to protect legal voters?
I doubt it would cost 20 million and even if it did, lets take it from Planned Parent Hood or NPR. They don't need it.
the $20 million was the price quoted just for the scanners. Any data base needed to do more than just go through the motions will add costs. Upkeep, union dues, installations fees, stadium fees, fee fees...it ain't gonna be cheap. and all for what?
wjh

Saint Paul, MN

#18 May 6, 2011
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the $20 million was the price quoted just for the scanners. Any data base needed to do more than just go through the motions will add costs. Upkeep, union dues, installations fees, stadium fees, fee fees...it ain't gonna be cheap. and all for what?
So basically you're arguing it cost too much to protect 32 legal votes? So you could care less about legal voters getting disenfranchised.

We can still use the basic system we already have, all you do is show your id along with providing your name and address, they can check the id against the information they currently have. What's so hard about that?

What they would have in addition to the master list, is a no voter list, similar to a no fly list. Anyone on the no vote list would not get a ballot that is where you need to stop it. Once an illegal vote is cast, you can't take it back.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#19 May 6, 2011
wjh wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically you're arguing it cost too much to protect 32 legal votes? So you could care less about legal voters getting disenfranchised.
We can still use the basic system we already have, all you do is show your id along with providing your name and address, they can check the id against the information they currently have. What's so hard about that?
What they would have in addition to the master list, is a no voter list, similar to a no fly list. Anyone on the no vote list would not get a ballot that is where you need to stop it. Once an illegal vote is cast, you can't take it back.
$2o million + for 32 votes and your disenfranchised? Probably more simple counting errors thatn that.
Black Genocide

Saint Paul, MN

#20 May 6, 2011
Black Genocide

Saint Paul, MN

#21 May 6, 2011
"Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlotte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Companies reconsidering North Carolina over LGB... Apr 16 Imprtnrd 140
News McCrory signs bill to undo Charlotte's non-disc... Mar '16 Yakitori 14
News Offensive Union County creek name refuses to fa... (May '13) Aug '13 Eldorado Jones 20
News Violence In Uptown Charlotte Raises Security Qu... (Jun '11) May '12 Jason 4
News High levels of carbon dioxide threaten oyster s... (Aug '10) Aug '10 Jay 7
News NC fleet's gas use examined (Apr '09) Apr '09 huh 6
News Services could change your life (May '08) May '08 Jimmy Lee 2
More from around the web